Partnership_literature_issues_overview

Edit 0 1 …
These are annotations from my (Ewen Le Borgne) reading of these publications.

What brings these different documents together (cross-cutting 'issues' or elements):
  • Capacity
  • Partnership management
  • Trust
  • Funding
  • Transaction costs
  • Power
  • Attitude
  • Theory of change
  • Expectations
  • Evaluation (of the partnership)
  • intellectual property rights
  • Being equals
  • Communication
  • Culture.
These are probably some of the key elements that the planned seminar should touch upon.
What is emerging as dimensions to touch upon, around partnerships, from my perspective, are:
  • Why other?
  • Who to partner with?
  • What is partnering, what is a partnership (definition, typology etc.)
  • Challenges
  • Research gaps
  • Scales of partnerships
  • Modalities of partnerships (e.g. MoU, LoI etc.)
  • Management through processes, systems, timeline
  • Enhancing factors
  • How to improve partnerships concretely for ILRI/LIVESTOCK?

Evaluation of partnerships in CGIAR (2017)

Definition: “a recognized relationship between a CGIAR Center or CRP and another institution within or external to CGIAR, to jointly undertake activities that contribute to each institution’s mandate”.
Issues:
  • Stronger role of NARS and of private sector
  • Little specialization in partnerships as 80% of partnerships contributing in more than one aspect of the CRP
  • Important for CGIAR to focus on research and it’s likely that that research will be scaled up where there is already capacity to do so
  • MSPs and other partnership models
  • ILRI formerly leading the way with separate partnership strategy (along CIAT and ICRAF)
  • Types of partnerships:
    • For upstream research (e.g. KIT on gender)
    • For applied research and scaling e.g. OneHealth partnership with Gov’t in Kenya for A4NH
    • PPPs
    • MSPs (either a) research focus b) delivery-focus – ag innovation c) national systems focus or d) global development challenge. And either doing:
      • Networking
      • Info sharing
      • Development action
  • Impact of funding on partnerships
  • Guidance of SMO on partnerships
  • Mechanisms to boost partnerships and integration: ToCs, value chains (see below), scaling models, CoPs (gender), webinars
    • Value chain approach a good way to bring integration and partnerships
  • Communication key – 4 stages: exploration, early engagement, maintaining partnerships, disengaging.
  • Issues in partnership: unrealistic (funding) expectations from partners and need to have capacity development to fill gaps
  • Key to develop good partnerships:
    • The importance of identifying concrete shared objectives rather than only general interest
    • The value of participating in existing national processes to the extent possible, rather than creating parallel processes.
    • The desirability of minimizing to the extent possible the transactions costs associated with CGIAR’s administrative processes, particularly related to planning and reporting, which affect strategic partners as well as CGIAR scientists.
    • The necessity, and difficulty of communicating clearly about expectations for roles, responsibilities, funding, delivery and reporting, in order to manage partner expectations as well as set a good foundation for partnerships.
    • The need to ensure that each partner is able to sustain its mandate, and to find ways to deal with power imbalances, by means of very regular communication.
    • The value of planning together for disengagement as research moves along the impact pathway
  • Ways forward include:
    • Connecting partnership management with ToC more clearly
    • Recommendations:
      • Develop CRP-specific partnership strategies and operational plans (which provided the basis for monitoring these partnerships)
      • Do strategic reviews of (global) MSPs
      • Strategic guidance from System level about PPPs
      • Position paper on funding
      • Do system-wide organizational learning on using partnerships optimally
      • Emerging and developing country NARS with strong capacity should be more closely involved in research management in CRPs.

ISPC good practice in AR4D partnerships (Nov. 2015)

About MSPs
Issues:
  • Context of partnerships e.g. wicked problems
  • 4 modes: a) ag research partnerships, b) ag innovation delivery partnerships c) national agri-food systems innovation partnerships d) global dev’t innovation partnerships
  • Critical focus on learning, use of existing infrastructure
  • CGIAR needs to better explain the science of innovation and impact and how MPSs, institutions, change etc. are connected (or not)
  • New alliances between partners, not new partnerships, are necessary now in the complex system
  • Key to good MSPs: link local-global, clear partner roles, capacity to evaluate partnership performance, capacity to adjust and update partnerships roles & structures based on lessons learned à connection between partnerships and MSPs also
  • CGIAR in AR4D means not just tech innovation but broader innovation towards systemic change
  • Various rationales for forming MSPs (economic efficiency, inclusiveness/governance, complexity,
  • Global MSPs: keys for success – clear objectives, mutually reinforcing activities, outputs as inputs, shared & linked measurement & learning mechanisms, long-term trust-based relationships, continuous communication.
  • Challenges for the efficacy of MSPs (p.36 aka 52/128)
  • Endearing myths vs. enduring truths (p.39 / 55)
  • Review of literature, including this critical one:
    • Bezanson, K., Narain, S. and Prante, G. (2004). Independent evaluation of the partnership committees of the CGIAR. Washington, DC: CGIAR Secretariat.
    • And CGIAR SRF which considers 5 successful partnership elements
    • From Woolley et al. (2012), 5 key objectives of partnerships:
      1. Knowledge sharing or creation: Foster information sharing and collaborative learning; cross-fertilisation of solutions; deployment of successful technologies.
      2. Political motives: Accountability to stakeholders, greater leverage and political legitimacy.
      3. Strategic motives: Access to resources and efficiency of resource use.
      4. Fostering systemic solutions to systemic problems, mimicking the complexity of the system.
      5. Fostering and accelerating behavioural and institutional changes through social learning.
  • Ways forward:
    • Develop a system-wide partnership strategy for CGiAR?
    • Have a CoP on ‘partnerships for impact’
    • a key element of global good practice is the creation of (or at least participation in) nested platforms/architectures or backbone structures that link local and global agendas and that both address defined problems locally, but also address systems change at appropriate scales

Audit of management of research partnerships at ILRI (2014)

  • Good to have set up a PSMS (Partnership Strategy Management System)
  • Way forward: Update PSMS to reflect different kinds of (e.g. CRP) partnerships

ILRI’s partnership strategy (2008)

Issues:
  • Partnership strategy including a) philosophy and principles, b) a framework, c) instruments/processes/systems, d) capacities to manage partnerships
  • Set of partnership principles (p 12)
  • ILRI partnership objectives: enhance livelihood impact, create access to decision-making and influence policy, develop capacity for livestock R&D, expand expertise & leverage capacity in research, mobilize resources
  • 3 types: project-based, strategic (theme/Operating Project), institutional partnerships
  • 3 categories: contractor, equal partner, service provider
  • Relationship manager appointed for strategic partnerships
  • Table 1 summarising considerations for project-based partnership management at every one of the 6 project stages
  • Knowledge sharing on partnerships and partnership knowledge base
  • Legal basis for partnerships
  • HR options for partners
  • Key abilities for partnership management (communication, negotiation, developing teams, monitoring partnerships
  • Financial management measures to support partnerships
  • KM measures to capture partnership information

L&F CRP partnership strategy (2015)

**http://livestock-fish.wikispaces.com/Partnership**
Issues:
  • Partnership strategy reference (p. 5) with useful graph on the typology of partners
  • 4 leading AR4D partnership principles from GCARD convos: namely that they should be formed around development issues, should operate as teams to engage across whole systems, should emerge and learn as they go, and be grounded in action
    • o Elements from the SRF to take into account: collaboration and partnerships to mutually inform and leverage the work of others
    • o investment processes, to stimulate more and better targeted efforts that are founded on proof
    • o capacity development initiatives that boost human and infrastructural capabilities for purposeful fit
    • o the sharing and exchange of information, knowledge, skills and technologies
    • Definition of dev’t partners
    • Challenges and reasons for divide among partners: There are significant differences in focus; mind set and approaches; goals and intentions; and nature of funding. (p. 10)
    • More typical partnership problems: Common problems cited by Gormley 2001[1] include poor attention to the process of building partnerships and trust; communication; over-committed partner, uncompleted work or missed deadlines; not enough support for partnership; and lack of partnership competencies. (p. 10)
    • Vision of success and implementation steps (p. 12)
    • Inventory of local and national VC actors (p. 14)
    • Matrix of power/reliability of actors (p. 15)
Ways forward: P. 12 and forward

Stakeholder feedback 2017

Issues:
  • ILRI strikes new and innovative partnerships (TATA Trust, CTLGH)
  • But mostly negative comments: timeliness, collaborative attitude, delivery, respect for communications, protocols of partners, systems to manage finances in partnerships, and realigning expectations with, ILRI’s position in the agricultural development landscape.
Ways forward:
  • Use partnerships to move forward in other areas (countries etc.) than EA
  • focus on building capacity among staff, incentives for staff to manage partnerships better, and putting in place smart, flexible internal processes. The heterogeneity of partnerships means that you have to be prudent in what and how you standardize processes.
  • Need to develop new upstream partnerships

Ranjitha’s learning module ‘Strengthening partnership and networks in AR4D

Issues:
  • Functions of project-based partnerships
  • Project and partnership cycle
  • Approach to partnership management & criteria to engage in partnerships (• capacity to contribute effectively to a specific function in the innovation system and impact pathway as described by the needs of the project • track record of capacity to deliver on promises • track record in managing funds • position to leverage collaboration in the setting of the project (standing of the partner, reputation, partner’s own networks of influence etc.) • considerations from the financers of the project • shared values and commitment to development and the desired outputs.)
  • Instruments and processes (for every stage of the project process)
  • Joint planning
  • MoU, LoI, code of ethics,
  • Building a work plan
  • Organising a partnership
  • Resolving differences

Ranjitha’s partnership typology

Issues:
  • Partnership types - related to:
    • Structure of ownership
    • Nature of interdependence
    • Motivating factors/rationale
    • Purpose
    • Nature of organization
    • Others
    • Partnership structure
      • Research partnership
      • PPPs
      • South-South partnerships
      • Factors affecting successful research partnerships

Partnership implementation: key steps and tools (R. Puskur 2010)

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/803/session6.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Issues:
  • Project implementation and monitoring
  • Evaluation phase
  • Competencies specific to partnership management / nurturing
    • Strategically identify partnership needs
    • Effectively lead or contribute to implementation of collaborative activities
    • Motivating participation and commitment within partnerships
    • Monitor and cultivate performance

Why partnership and networks in AR4D?

Issues:
  • Definition of partnerships and networks
  • Why partnerships?
  • Factors contributing to increased use of partnerships and networks within AR4D (complexity, changing role of gov’t, competition, funding scenarios etc.)
  • Factors hindering and enhancing impacts of partnership

ILRI’s experience with public-private partnerships in pro-poor livestock development research and its uptake and application

PPT: https://www.slideshare.net/ILRI/ilris-experience-with-publicprivate-partnerships-ppps-in-propoor-livestock-development-research-and-its-uptake-and-application
Issues:
  • Research / exchange / service partnerships (same typology as Ranjitha)
  • Caveats: design to facilitate joint innovation, risk management, analysis of poverty-targeting strategies
Moving forward:
  • PPP role in risk management
  • PPP and capital mobilization
  • Policy development

ILAC perspectives on partnerships

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/70210 and http://cipotato.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/004982.pdf
Issues:
  • Reviewing the different literatures and mentioning analytical/descriptive (what is) vs. normative (how to) studies on this topic.
  • Why partnerships and accountability (made easier or more difficult?)
  • Problem with many N/S relationships
  • Types of partnerships
  • incentives for partnering,
  • the key role of trust,
  • power and equity issues,
  • success factors and evaluation
  • Gaps in research etc.
Ways forward:
  • Do specific research on AR4D partnerships with empirical studies and documented evidence

The partnering toolbook

(4 eds from 2003 to now since 2011)
Issues:
  • Why partner (looking at public, business, civil society)
  • Obstacles to partnering
  • Key partnering challenges
  • Building a partnership
  • What can each partner bring to the partnership
  • Partnering agreements (informal vs. formal structures)
  • Managing the partnership process (partners as leaders, partnering skills
  • Management and mandate options
  • Good partnering practice (e.g. language)
  • Delivering successful projects (action planning)
  • Sustaining partnerships (planning for long term, securing engagement, building institutional capacity, BUILDING NEW PARTNERSHIP INSTITUTIONS)
  • Successful partnering

WWF Partnership toolbox (31 pages)

Issues:
  • Questions to consider (joint vision, legally binding, what to put in place to strengthen?)
  • Organisational context
  • Partnership agreement tool (25 boxes to fill out)
  • Partnership baseline tool – including partnership baseline matrix (16 boxes to check)
  • Partnership monitoring tool – spider matrix
  • Characteristics of partnership tool on trust, shared values, commitment to goals, mutual respect etc.
  • Relationship typologies tool – 5 roles, various relationships, 3 levels of collaboration
  • Resources on partnerships

Talking the walk (R. Tennyson 2008)

Issues:
  • Some definitions
  • Partnering: a communication challenge
  • Intentions, assumptions and inclusion
  • Communicating within the partnership
  • Communicating beyond the partnership
  • Conversations: the essential building block
  • Words and images (becoming a better writer, layout/tone etc.)
  • Planning, implementing and evaluating communication – including the 12-step Tennyson framework
  • Tools for communicating in partnerships -
  • Stories from the front line
  • Talking the walk
  • Further resources

? Designing-Comprehensive-Partnering-Agreements

Issues:
  • Partnership questions
  • Partnership agreement scorecard (confusing to complete and very clear)

Partnering for impact series (10 case study papers)

Issues: to be sketched still
Ways forward: